CAUSE TITLE:
Guddu @ Vinay &Ors v State of MP &Anr.
DATE OF ORDER:
3 March 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Guddu @ Vinay & Ors.
Respondent: State of MP &Anr.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ ST Act’ or ‘the Act’)
- Section 3(2)(v) – life imprisonment for offences committed against persons of SC/ ST community.
- Section 14A – appeal against any judgment/ order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court, based on facts and on law.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’)
- Section 397 – Revisionary powers of a High Court or any Sessions Court.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ or ‘the Code’)
- Section 307 – Attempt to murder.
- Section 302 – Punishment for murder.
- Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of Common Intention.
SUBJECT
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (herein after referred to as ‘High Court’ or‘the Court’), rejecting the objection raised by the Office, held that an order framing charges is not an interlocutory order and therefore, an appeal under Section 14A of the CS/ ST Act must be preferred to challenge such an order.
BRIEF FACTS
- The Appellants preferred the instant Criminal Appeal in furtherance of a case pending before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, for the offences punishable under the said Act.
- The Criminal Appeal was filed under section 14A of the Act and the Appellants were charged under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ ST Act.
- There was an office objection to the effect that the instant Criminal Appeal would not be maintainable and instead, a Criminal Revision should be preferred by the Appellants.
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Whether the contention of the Office is justified?
- Whether an order framing charges is an interlocutory order?
ANALYSIS
- Section 14A of the SC/ ST Act starts with a non-obstante clause stating that not withstanding the provisions of the CrPC, an appeal shall lie before a High Court from an order or judgement not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court.
- It is to be noted here that unlike other legislative provisions where an appeal can be preferred with the High Court only in cases involving a substantial question of law, under Section 14A,an appeal can be preferred both on facts and on law.
- In a similar case before this Court, in Salma Mansuri v the State of MP, the Office had taken an objection that a Criminal Appeal should have been filed instead of a Criminal Revision. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court concluded that in cases involving framing of a charge, being an interlocutory order, a revision would lie and not an appeal.
- On an examination of Section 397(2) of CrPC, it is amply clear that there is an embargo on a High Court’s power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. Thus, if an order framing charge(s) is construed as an interlocutory order, the revisionary powers of the Court will be forbidden.
- Analysing as to what constitutes an interlocutory order, the Single Judge Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amarnath and others v State of Haryana, wherein the Court held that the term interlocutory order under the CrPC has been used in a restricted sense and merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties involved.
- The Apex Court observed that orders substantially affecting the rights of the accused or which decided rights of the parties do not constitute interlocutory order as it would defeat the very object with which Section 397 was introduced in the CrPC.
- Investigating further, the Supreme Court observed that orders which are matters of the moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order and outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
- The Bench referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v State of Maharashtra wherein it was held that all orders which are not in the nature of final orders cannot be interpreted as interlocutory orders as such an interpretation would negate the legislative intent behind grating revisionary powers to the High Court and the Sessions Court. The Apex Court categorised such orders as ‘intermediate orders’.
CONCLUSION
Having regard to the aforesaid observations and rulings of the Apex Court, the Single Judge bench observed that any order that affects the rights of the parties cannot be deemed to be an interlocutory order, but the same would be construed an intermediate order. The Bench rejected the order of the Office and held that an order framing charges is not an interlocutory order and thus an appeal would lie under section 14A of the SC/ ST Act.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
